The Brutal Critical Response to ‘Are You There, Chelsea?’ Is Funnier than the Show

In an attempt to verify what we all knew, I watched “Are You There, Chelsea?” Twice. But on both occasions, my mind drifted. It says something about how terrible a show is when foul-mouthed women talking about sex, a motorcycle-riding midget, Lenny Clarke, and a B-plot about a ginger guy with overgrown pubic hair can’t hold my attention (the laugh track didn’t help). I might have felt compelled to write a scathing review of the show myself if it had managed engage me long enough to get worked up over it. But you can’t just say “vodka” and “chlamydia” and “pubic hair” and expect those words to be funny without providing context for the jokes and characters with whom we can identify. “Are You There, Chelsea?” is not a show as much as its just bad actors uttering provocative words that fail to provoke.

Worse still, the ratings for both “Whitney” and “Are You There, Chelsea?” weren’t terrible; in fact, for NBC, they were down right encouraging, which could mean we don’t get “Community” back for a while. Hopefully, however, it was just morbid curiosity that compelled over 6 million people to watch “Chelsea” (compared to the 4 million that watch “Community” on Thursdays), and they won’t be returning next week. I don’t know why anyone would want to watch again. The show was dreadful, as these seven critical responses can attest:

“The debut of NBC’s new Wednesday lineup featured an uninterrupted jag of jerk-off jokes, set pieces about ungroomed pubic hair, and an entire b-plot devoted to the misadventures of an adult woman unable to defecate in the same apartment as her fiancé … Pairing [“Whitney” and “Are You There, Chelsea?” is like spiking lemon juice with vinegar, and the scheduling only makes the insult worse: no matter their morals, no family should be forced to endure television this bad. — Andy Greenwald, Grantland

“If Are You There, Chelsea? were a song, it would probably be “Miracles” by Jefferson Starship—tiresome, lacking any sense of direction, and difficult to endure without a CamelBak full of absinthe. ” — Asawin Suebsaeng, Mother Jones

“The whole thing plays like somebody read one of Handler’s books and highlighted a bunch of stuff that just had to be in a TV show, without really considering if all of those things would work together in the same space. This leads to the curious sense that you’re being led on a tour of someone’s life, with a guide that’s occasionally appealing but is someone who you get the vague sense you’re supposed to like more than you do, just because of who she is.” — Todd VanDerWerff, The AV Club

“One thing that’s not confusing: “Are You There, Chelsea?” is terrible. Forget Handler’s weird on-camera presence (she says she’s too busy with her day job at E! for a full-time job) and the dumb name (which clearly arose out of someone at NBC being uncomfortable putting “vodka” in the title). This is a sitcom that is crude without being the least bit clever about it, and which doesn’t even have the guts to let its main character be as nasty as she clearly wants to be.” — Alan Sepinwall, Hitfix.com

“‘Are You There, Chelsea?’ is viable, just barely, as entertainment because it keeps things simple. If it had the slightest aspiration even to have an aspiration beyond stringing wisecracks on a loop of pure attitude, it would disappear. The show gets by as the vodka of television comedy. It aims to have no taste.” — Troy Patterson, Slate

Low-brow, raunchy, edgy, whatever you want to call it humor has its place and can be hilarious, and cheers to the crop of women, including Cummings and Handler, and their shows, including “Two Broke Girls,” for attempting to break down barriers concerning what women can do and say for a laugh. The problem is those laughs don’t come easily, if at all. As tricky as humor can be to define, I can’t suggest a surefire remedy for making shows such as “Are You There, Chelsea?” work. Perhaps if the focus rested on building actual stories with believable characters, not just fillers for vagina jokes. — Sarah Carlson, Pajiba

“This thing is bad, guys. Real bad. We’re sure there are lovely crew people and whoever else working on this show who deserve gainful employment, but this thing needs to be smothered with a pillow and thrown into a ditch, next to “How to Be a Gentleman” and hopefully soon “Work It” and “Whitney.” Goodbye, awful sitcoms that trade in tired old cliches and end up becoming gross and vaguely offensive in the process! We will not miss you.” — Richard Lawson, The Atlantic

Yeah, I’m sure the review of the show was spot on but Asawin Suebsaeng can suck my balls if he don’t like Miracles. I mean the song is flat out about sex and cunnilingus and it still gets rotation play on classic rock and easy listening stations. Stick to Nickelback, Suebs.

I’ve never understood the appeal of Handler. People tell me she’s hilarious, but I don’t get the comedy of a 45-second breathless, rambling, buildup that she trips and stumbles through to get to a punchline that’s either “slut,” “vagina,” or “vagina slut.” Are there really people who still think just saying naughty words is funny all by itself?

Chelsea Handler has zero talent. I’ve caught some of her show on overlap from The Soup and it’s excruciatingly awful. I can only imagine how fucking terrible a show is if it’s based on anything to do with her.

Give me an ugly main character who is actually funny, and that character will actually become more attractive to me. Give me an attractive character trying to be funny, and she will become less attractive. I don’t think the studios get this.

I saw some of Chelsea Lately a few years ago and I’ve accidentally landed on E! more recently. Does it seem like Chelsea hates her show as much as the rest of us do? She sits there sullenly and sneers at her panel’s jokes. Or she ignores their banter entirely and talks over them to introduce new topics.

I agree with everything you said about this show.And Whitney (and 2 broke girls for that matter.) Can I make one small request though? Can you please try to write one article without mentioning community!?!? We get it, you liked it, it was a good show and it got passed on for renewel. But guess what, its not the first time thats happened to a good show. So maybe it was your favorite show ever. I don’t really care, because I never watched it. Maybe I’m missing out. But reading about what a tragedy the loss of a show that I never saw, and I’m sure a lot of other people never saw either (maybe thats why it might get cancelled) is getting a bit annoying now. I sympathise with the frustration you feel at seeing a show you enjoy get cancelled while crap thats marketed to idiots gets renewed every season. But community was passed up months ago, until theres any new confirmation saying it is or isnt coming back dont you feel you should leave it for a petition or something?

This show is so bad. This show is so incredibly bad that I feel almost insulted that this regurgitation marketed as humor was even presented to me. I like Chelsea Handler, and I like watching Chelsea Handler. But this show makes me really feel bad for Chelsea that she would stoop so low to make money, at least she hardly appears in the show. Whitney is a terrible comedian in general, Chelsea is at least funny. When I hear that Whitney is going to be on a show or interviewed for something I cringe, I know it’ll be a sad mockery of entertainment. It’s like the jokes my grandpa would say if he were a nympho wannabe. Whitney’s show is just as bad as Are you there Chelsea.